0
Research Papers: Fundamental Issues and Canonical Flows

A Hybrid Eulerian–Eulerian Discrete-Phase Model of Turbulent Bubbly Flow

[+] Author and Article Information
Hyunjin Yang

Department of Mechanical Science
and Engineering,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
1206 W. Green Street,
Urbana, IL 61801
e-mail: hyang69@illinois.edu

Surya P. Vanka

ASME Fellow
Department of Mechanical Science
and Engineering,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
1206 W. Green Street,
Urbana, IL 61801
e-mail: spvanka@illinois.edu

Brian G. Thomas

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Colorado School of Mines,
Brown Hall W370-B, 1610 Illinois Street,
Golden, CO 80401
e-mail: bgthomas@csm.edu

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Fluids Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF FLUIDS ENGINEERING. Manuscript received November 15, 2017; final manuscript received March 24, 2018; published online May 2, 2018. Assoc. Editor: Ning Zhang.

J. Fluids Eng 140(10), 101202 (May 02, 2018) (12 pages) Paper No: FE-17-1734; doi: 10.1115/1.4039793 History: Received November 15, 2017; Revised March 24, 2018

The Eulerian–Eulerian two-fluid model (EE) is a powerful general model for multiphase flow computations. However, one limitation of the EE model is that it has no ability to estimate the local bubble sizes by itself. In this work, we have combined the discrete phase model (DPM) to estimate the evolution of bubble sizes with the EE model. In the DPM, the change of bubble size distribution is estimated by coalescence, breakup, and volumetric expansion modeling of the bubbles. The time-varying bubble distribution is used to compute the local interface area between gas and liquid phase, which is then used to estimate the momentum interactions such as drag, lift, wall lubrication, and turbulent dispersion forces for the EE model. In this work, this newly developed hybrid model Eulerian–Eulerian discrete-phase model (EEDPM) is applied to compute an upward flowing bubbly flow in a vertical pipe and the results are compared with previous experimental work of Hibiki et al. (2001, “Axial Interfacial Area Transport of Vertical Bubbly Flows,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 44(10), pp. 1869–1888). The EEDPM model is able to reasonably predict the locally different bubble size distributions and the velocity and gas fraction fields. On the other hand, the standard EE model without the DPM shows good comparison with measurements only when the prescribed constant initial bubble size is accurate and does not change much. Parametric studies are implemented to understand the contributions of bubble interactions and volumetric expansion on the size change of bubbles quantitatively. The results show that coalescence is larger than other effects, and naturally increases in importance with increasing gas fraction.

Copyright © 2018 by ASME
Topics: Bubbles , Bubbly flow
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Harlow, F. H. , and Amsden, A. A. , 1975, “ Numerical-Calculation of Multiphase Fluid-Flow,” J. Comput. Phys., 17(1), pp. 19–52. [CrossRef]
Riley, J. J. , 1974, “ Diffusion Experiments With Numerically Integrated Isotropic Turbulence,” Phys. Fluids, 17(2), p. 292. [CrossRef]
Monahan, S. M. , Vitankar, V. S. , and Fox, R. O. , 2005, “ CFD Predictions for Flow-Regime Transitions in Bubble Columns,” AlChE J., 51(7), pp. 1897–1923. [CrossRef]
Sanyal, J. , Vasquez, S. , Roy, S. , and Dudukovic, M. P. , 1999, “ Numerical Simulation of Gas-Liquid Dynamics in Cylindrical Bubble Column Reactors,” Chem. Eng. Sci., 54(21), pp. 5071–5083. [CrossRef]
Sokolichin, A. , and Eigenberger, G. , 1994, “ Gas-Liquid Flow in Bubble Columns and Loop Reactors—Part I: Detailed Modelling and Numerical Simulation,” Chem. Eng. Sci., 49(24), pp. 5735–5746. [CrossRef]
Law, D. , Battaglia, F. , and Heindel, T. J. , 2006, “ Numerical Simulations of Gas-Liquid Flow Dynamics in Bubble Columns,” ASME Paper No. IMECE2006-13544.
Law, D. , Jones, S. T. , Heindel, T. J. , and Battaglia, F. , 2011, “ A Combined Numerical and Experimental Study of Hydrodynamics for an Air-Water External Loop Airlift Reactor,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 133(2), p. 021301. [CrossRef]
Ma, J. , Oberai, A. A. , Drew, D. A. , and Lahey, R. T. , 2012, “ A Two-Way Coupled Polydispersed Two-Fluid Model for the Simulation of Air Entrainment Beneath a Plunging Liquid Jet,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 134(10), p. 101304. [CrossRef]
Ishii, M. , and Mishima, K. , 1984, “ Two-Fluid Model and Hydrodynamic Constitutive Relations,” Nucl. Eng. Des., 82(2–3), pp. 107–126. [CrossRef]
Grevskott, S. , Sannaes, B. H. , Dudukovic, M. P. , Hjarbo, K. W. , and Svendsen, H. F. , 1996, “ Liquid Circulation, Bubble Size Distributions, and Solids Movement in Two- and Three-Phase Bubble Columns,” Chem. Eng. Sci., 51(10), pp. 1703–1713. [CrossRef]
Krishna, R. , van Baten, J. M. , and Urseanu, M. I. , 2000, “ Three-Phase Eulerian Simulations of Bubble Column Reactors Operating in the Churn-Turbulent Regime: A Scale Up Strategy,” Chem. Eng. Sci., 55(16), pp. 3275–3286. [CrossRef]
Lehr, F. , Millies, M. , and Mewes, D. , 2002, “ Bubble-Size Distributions and Flow Fields in Bubble Columns,” AlChE J., 48(11), pp. 2426–2443. [CrossRef]
Hulburt, H. M. , and Katz, S. , 1964, “ Some Problems in Particle Technology,” Chem. Eng. Sci., 19(8), pp. 555–574. [CrossRef]
Krepper, E. , Lucas, D. , Frank, T. , Prasser, H. M. , and Zwart, P. J. , 2008, “ The Inhomogeneous MUSIG Model for the Simulation of Polydispersed Flows,” Nucl. Eng. Des., 238(7), pp. 1690–1702. [CrossRef]
Lo, S. , 1996, AEA Technology.
Maisels, A. , Kruis, F. E. , and Fissan, H. , 2004, “ Direct Simulation Monte Carlo for Simultaneous Nucleation, Coagulation, and Surface Growth in Dispersed Systems,” Chem. Eng. Sci., 59(11), pp. 2231–2239. [CrossRef]
McGraw, R. , 1997, “ Description of Aerosol Dynamics by the Quadrature Method of Moments,” Aerosol Sci. Technol., 27(2), pp. 255–265. [CrossRef]
Ramkrishna, D. , 2000, Population Balances: Theory and Applications to Particulate Systems in Engineering, Academic Press, London.
Liao, Y. X. , and Lucas, D. , 2009, “ A Literature Review of Theoretical Models for Drop and Bubble Breakup in Turbulent Dispersions,” Chem. Eng. Sci., 64(15), pp. 3389–3406. [CrossRef]
Liao, Y. X. , and Lucas, D. , 2010, “ A Literature Review on Mechanisms and Models for the Coalescence Process of Fluid Particles,” Chem. Eng. Sci., 65(10), pp. 2851–2864. [CrossRef]
Liao, Y. X. , Lucas, D. , Krepper, E. , and Schmidtke, M. , 2011, “ Development of a Generalized Coalescence and Breakup Closure for the Inhomogeneous MUSIG Model,” Nucl. Eng. Des., 241(4), pp. 1024–1033. [CrossRef]
Liu, Z. Q. , Qi, F. S. , Li, B. K. , and Cheung, S. C. P. , 2016, “ Modeling of Bubble Behaviors and Size Distribution in a Slab Continuous Casting Mold,” Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 79, pp. 190–201. [CrossRef]
Law, D. , and Battaglia, F. , 2013, “ Numerical Simulations for Hydrodynamics of Air-Water External Loop Airlift Reactor Flows With Bubble Break-Up and Coalescence Effects,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 135(8), p. 081302. [CrossRef]
Randolph, A. D. , and Larson, M. A. , 1988, Theory of Particulate Process: Analysis and Techniques of Continuous Crystallization, Academic Press, London.
Ishii, M. , and Hibiki, T. , 2006, Thermo-Fluid Dynamics of Two-Phase Flow, Springer Science + Business Media, New York. [CrossRef]
Frenklach, M. , and Harris, S. J. , 1987, “ Aerosol Dynamics Modeling Using the Method of Moments,” J. Colloid Interface Sci., 118(1), pp. 252–261. [CrossRef]
Hibiki, T. , and Ishii, M. , 2000, “ One-Group Interfacial Area Transport of Bubbly Flows in Vertical Round Tubes,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 43(15), pp. 2711–2726. [CrossRef]
Wu, Q. , Kim, S. , Ishii, M. , and Beus, S. G. , 1998, “ One-Group Interfacial Area Transport in Vertical Bubbly Flow,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 41(8–9), pp. 1103–1112. [CrossRef]
Elghobashi, S. , 1991, “ Particle-Laden Turbulent Flows—Direct Simulation and Closure Models,” Appl. Sci. Res., 48(3–4), pp. 301–314. [CrossRef]
Elghobashi, S. , and Truesdell, G. C. , 1992, “ Direct Simulation of Particle Dispersion in a Decaying Isotropic Turbulence,” J. Fluid Mech., 242(1), pp. 655–700. [CrossRef]
Vance, M. W. , Squires, K. D. , and Simonin, O. , 2006, “ Properties of the Particle Velocity Field in Gas-Solid Turbulent Channel Flow,” Phys. Fluids, 18(6), p. 063302. [CrossRef]
Yamamoto, Y. , Potthoff, M. , Tanaka, T. , Kajishima, T. , and Tsuji, Y. , 2001, “ Large-Eddy Simulation of Turbulent Gas-Particle Flow in a Vertical Channel: Effect of Considering Inter-Particle Collisions,” J. Fluid Mech., 442, pp. 303–334. [CrossRef]
Rani, S. L. , Winkler, C. , and Vanka, S. , 2004, “ Numerical Simulations of Turbulence Modulation by Dense Particles in a Fully Developed Pipe Flow,” Powder Technol., 141(1–2), pp. 80–99. [CrossRef]
Sun, J. , Battaglia, F. , and Subramaniam, S. , 2007, “ Hybrid Two-Fluid DEM Simulation of Gas-Solid Fluidized Beds,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 129(11), pp. 1394–1403. [CrossRef]
Ma, J. S. , Hsiao, C. T. , and Chahine, G. L. , 2015, “ Euler-Lagrange Simulations of Bubble Cloud Dynamics Near a Wall,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 137(4), p. 041301. [CrossRef]
Pirker, S. , Kahrimanovic, D. , and Schneiderbauer, S. , 2015, “ Secondary Vortex Formation in Bifurcated Submerged Entry Nozzles: Numerical Simulation of Gas Bubble Entrapment,” Metall. Trans. B, 46(2), pp. 953–960. [CrossRef]
Yang, H. , and Thomas, B. G. , 2017, “ Multiphase Flow and Bubble Size Distribution in Continuous Casters Using a Hybrid EEDPM Model,” SteelSIM2017, Qingdao, China, Aug. 16–18.
Yang, H. , Vanka, S. P. , and Thomas, B. G. , 2018, “ Modeling of Argon Gas Behavior in Continuous Casting of Steel,” TMS Annual Meeting and Exhibition, Phoenix, AZ, Mar. 11–15, pp. 119–131.
Hibiki, T. , Ishii, M. , and Xiao, Z. , 2001, “ Axial Interfacial Area Transport of Vertical Bubbly Flows,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 44(10), pp. 1869–1888. [CrossRef]
Rzehak, R. , and Kriebitzsch, S. , 2015, “ Multiphase CFD-Simulation of Bubbly Pipe Flow: A Code Comparison,” Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 68, pp. 135–152. [CrossRef]
Frank, T. , and Menter, F. R. , 2003, “Bubble Flow in Vertical Pipes,” ANSYS, Inc., Canonsburg, PA.
Tomiyama, A. , Kataoka, I. , Zun, I. , and Sakaguchi, T. , 1998, “ Drag Coefficients of Single Bubbles Under Normal and Micro Gravity Conditions,” JSME Int. J. Ser. B, 41(2), pp. 472–479. [CrossRef]
Tomiyama, A. , Tamai, H. , Zun, I. , and Hosokawa, S. , 2002, “ Transverse Migration of Single Bubbles in Simple Shear Flows,” Chem. Eng. Sci., 57(11), pp. 1849–1858. [CrossRef]
Hosokawa, S. , Tomiyama, A. , Misaki, S. , and Hamada, T. , 2002, “ Lateral Migration of Single Bubbles Due to the Presence of Wall,” ASME Paper No. FEDSM2002-31148.
Burns, A. D. , Frank, T. , Hamill, I. , and Shi, J.-M. , 2004, “ The Favre Averaged Drag Model for Turbulent Dispersion in Eulerian Multi-Phase Flows,” Fifth International Conference on Multiphase Flow (ICMF), pp. 1–17.
ANSYS, 2012, “ ANSYS Fluent Theory Manual,” ANSYS, Inc., Canonsburg, PA.
Auton, T. , 1987, “ The Lift Force on a Spherical Body in a Rotational Flow,” J. Fluid Mech., 183(1), pp. 199–218. [CrossRef]
Prince, M. J. , and Blanch, H. W. , 1990, “ Bubble Coalescence and Break-Up in Air-Sparged Bubble-Columns,” AlChE J., 36(10), pp. 1485–1499. [CrossRef]
Luo, H. , and Svendsen, H. F. , 1996, “ Theoretical Model for Drop and Bubble Breakup in Turbulent Dispersions,” AlChE J., 42(5), pp. 1225–1233. [CrossRef]
Wang, T. F. , Wang, J. F. , and Jin, Y. , 2003, “ A Novel Theoretical Breakup Kernel Function for Bubbles/Droplets in a Turbulent Flow,” Chem. Eng. Sci., 58(20), pp. 4629–4637. [CrossRef]
Nambiar, D. K. R. , Kumar, R. , Das, T. R. , and Gandhi, K. S. , 1992, “ A New Model for the Breakage Frequency of Drops in Turbulent Stirred Dispersions,” Chem. Eng. Sci., 47(12), pp. 2989–3002. [CrossRef]
Kuboi, R. , Komasawa, I. , and Otake, T. , 1972, “ Collision and Coalescence of Dispersed Drops in Turbulent Liquid Flow,” J. Chem. Eng. Jpn., 5(4), pp. 423–424. [CrossRef]
Kuboi, R. , Komasawa, I. , and Otake, T. , 1972, “ Behavior of Dispersed Particles in Turbulent Liquid Flow,” J. Chem. Eng. Jpn., 5(4), pp. 349–355. [CrossRef]
Hesketh, R. P. , Etchells, A. W. , and Russell, T. W. F. , 1991, “ Experimental-Observations of Bubble Breakage in Turbulent-Flow,” Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 30(5), pp. 835–841. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Lift coefficient of Tomiyama model and a modified model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Coalescence of bubbles near the center of the pipe in case 2: (a) before coalescence and (b) after coalescence

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Breakup of bubbles near the wall in case 2: (a) before breakup and (b) after breakup

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Profiles of Sauter mean diameter (case 2) of DPM bubbles from EEDPM at Z = 6D, Z = 53.5D and vertical integration, compared with measurements

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Velocity (a) and gas fraction profiles (b) (case 2) from EEDPM at Z = 53.5D and comparisons with measurements

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Schematic of the computational domain and a top view of the mesh

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Comparison of velocity (a), gas fraction (b) and bubble size profiles (c) at Z = 53.5D for EE simulation of case 3 with Tomiyama lift

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Comparison of velocity (a), gas fraction (b) and bubble size profile (c) at Z = 53.5D for EE simulation of case 3 with modified lift

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Comparison of velocity (a), gas fraction (b) and bubble size profiles (c) at Z = 53.5D between measurements and EE simulation of case 1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Discrete phase model bubble distributions of case 2 (a) and case 3 (b) near Z = 53.5D

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Comparison of velocity (a), gas fraction (b) and bubble size profiles (c) at Z = 53.5D between measurements and EE simulation of case 2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Comparison of velocity (a), gas fraction (b) and bubble size profiles (c) at Z = 53.5D between measurements and EE simulation of case 3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Comparison of DPM bubble sizes from EEDPM at Z = 53.5D about run 1–3 for case 3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Comparison of DPM bubble sizes from EEDPM at Z = 53.5D about run 4–6 for case 3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Profiles of Sauter mean diameter (case 3) of DPM bubbles from EEDPM at Z = 6D, Z = 53.5D and vertical integration, compared with measurements

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Velocity (a) and gas fraction profiles (b) (case 3) from EEDPM at Z = 53.5D and comparisons with the measurements

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Comparison of DPM bubble sizes from EEDPM at Z = 53.5D about run 1–3 for case 2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Comparison of DPM bubble sizes from EEDPM at Z = 53.5D about run 4–6 for case 2

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In